The role of violence in the liberation of peoples from systems of domination is necessarily entwined to the concept of freedom. Herbert Marcuse and Frantz Fanon argue that violence, in various forms, is the only reasonable rebuttal to the abhorrent system of subjugation, whether it is in shape of something as transparent as apartheid to thinly veiled laws that take away the rights of humans under the capitalist system. To even understand the relationship between freedom and violence it has to be established what it is even meant by the phrase “violence” while simultaneously attempting to understand what means are necessary to achieve this end. Furthermore, what does it mean to be “violent” and is it always acceptable to use violence as a device to achieve a certain objective, even if that goal is something as vital as human emancipation? Conversely, the argument against the use of violence, in all its forms, to achieve freedom needs to be explored. The contrary argument that will be explored is from various texts of Martin Luther King Jr. and while our fundamental argument is opposed to King’s his views must still be taken into account if, for nothing else, to add structure to the argument at hand. It must be remembered that while the role of violence and freedom are necessarily bonded to one another this does not mean that violence is the only means to achieve freedom but that violence is the “best” way to achieve the ultimate goal of freedom.
Frantz Fanon states that achieving freedom through decolonization “is always a violent phenomenon” (“Wretched of the Earth” 35) as is the case whenever and wherever peoples live under a system of domination. Under any system that restricts the freedoms of peoples to live their liv...
... middle of paper ...
...their power willingly. Violence must be utilized to achieve freedom, to pry it from the hands of those that hold it and give it to those that seek it.
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
By using diction and repetition, Cesar Chavez emphases the need to use nonviolence during moments of injustice. The rhetorical choices made in this argument draw forth feelings of understanding and cause the readers to think deeper into Chaves' point of view. The purpose is to carry a message that shows the power of nonviolence and what it brings to the world. People quickly follow the straight, bloody path of force and violence, rather than thinking deeper in search for the winding yet cleaner path. As human beings, we crave the freedom and power we believe was bestowed upon us by God. We will fight tooth and nail, even threw the deaths of many, in order to achieve these trivial things.
...xplained in details the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the American civil rights movement. Despite this, the essay is still very useful in highlighting the need to respect basic human rights. The recent events in Egypt are indicative of what happens when individuals gain the political and social will to stand up against oppression. The people of Egypt staged protests in order to overturn the established, 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. This is the foundation of uprisings in the 21st century; the desire for fundamental human rights and dignity. Soyinka's essay predicted these 12 years ago; the world is watching; and dictator's and the politically powerful know it.
Oppression is not always brought on in a violent and oppositional way, it can take on a peaceful and silent form; however regardless of the way oppression is introduced, it maintains the same characteristics of “imposing belief systems, values, laws and ways of ...
If King defines violence as “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), and Mitchell claims that violence can be used to bring about peace and equality. And King further states that “immoral and destructive means” (King, 400), can only bring about immoral and destructive ends. Then it is possible to infer that peace and equality are immoral and destructive. This is an error brought about through a lack of a definition to the terms violence and non-violence. As with the time King found new terms to differentiate between the types of love, he must find a number of new terms with which we may differentiate between the types of violence. The lack of variety has led to confusion that can possibly be eased through an ability to discriminate meanings. A possible distinction King could make between his violence and Mitchell’s violence is by using the terms brutality and brouhaha. A brouhaha could be what King calls non-violence, and brutality being what King calls violence. Brutality being a physical, forceful and damaging act of cruelty. A brouhaha is an enthusiastic act of abnormal behavior for the purpose of causing discomfort in others. An example of a brouhaha would be what King would call a non-violent protest. An example of brutality would be smashing in the windows of a store that refused to serve someone. To fix the claim “the type of peace King predicts from non-violence is better than one from violence,” Dr. King need only add a disclaimer stating the fact that such a claim is purely conjecture and wrought with bias. These changes could cause the essay to lose some of its power over the public, a group that has to think very little about the information that moves them, but it is personally believed that the changes would make the document more accurate for the people who
...he “oppressed” will act toward freedom and reintegration into society and will eventually succeed in gaining back their freedom, but it will not be easy. To make steps in the right direction and to determine the right choice, one must take into account the impact silence or non-silence makes on the system as a whole; the better choice does not add to the mass incarceration.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
Fanon stated that in order to achieve liberation we need violence. He clearly says, “But it (decolonization) cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement”(3) It was and is a vital part against colonialism and imperialism. Because not only do the colonized have to fight for liberty they have to dominate those once colonized centers. When they fight for liberty the natives become united. That is his first strategy in order to obtain decolonization.
...y too followed Frantz Fanon’s ideals on decolonization, and in doing so sought liberation themselves.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
Therefore, legislation as deliberate law-making and the voice of the state of the sovereign body calls the common good of the life of man to the forefront of this question, both when democracy rules but primarily when totalitarian despots reign. The politicization of bare life as such legitimates the power of the sovereign state. But as repetitive instances of state-sponsored genocide have shown multiple times throughout the 20th century, state power can and does abuse the life of the citizen, whose life is paradoxically the force of the nation-state itself. It is through this e...
Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.
In this essay it will be argued that nonviolence encourages violence by the state and corporations. The ideology of nonviolence creates
but, you must always stay disputations to be able to stay on the right path to following your beliefs. But in some cases such as the, African Americans, the violent disobedience was justified to earn equality for the citizens that were treated as less than trash. In addition, when interviewing Steven Saelee to understand his point of view of if violence is ever justified, he had said to me, “violence should only ever be used when harm is coming towards you or another but in certain in cases it can be used to over throw a government that has treated its people unlawfully”. He further went onto say that violence is only acceptable when used to solve a situation where words can no longer solve the issue. Another example is when I was in elementary school, there was a student who was sexually harassing a female student. Now a fellow classmate came to him to tell him to stop but he wouldn 't listen. So in order to stop him I had to break the rules and used my fists to stop him. Which in my eyes, I found that violent disobedience was the only solution because I had to break the rules placed on me by the school district in order to preserve the girl’s
...difficult to overcome the ruling class, as this violence is not obvious, as it is structured in the things we do in everyday life, making it virtually impossible to overcome this deep, structural violence within society. Arendt argues that political institutions and poor governance and justifications for warfare lead to violence being inflicted on the community, with the modern concept of ‘totalitarianism’ allowing for the concept of freedom to be linked to justification of war, something that deeply disturbs her. Overall, Arendt greatly challenges her principles in On Revolution to determine that violence and politics will always be linked, however forecasts that her theory of revolution can impact the future of politics internationally and create a free society, providing hope that one day politics and violence will be distinct, allowing for genuine governance.